Pages

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

The Son is over all

One argument deployed by unitarians and Nicene
subordinationists is to assert a fundamental asymmetry between the Father and
the Son: the Father sends the Son, but the Son never sends the Father. The
Father tells the Son what do to, but the Son never tells the Father what to do.

Let’s examine the first claim first. The problem with the
first claim is the inference that being sent connotes a subordinate status. No
doubt there are examples in which that’s the case. A centurion dispatches a
lower-ranking officer.

However, in Johannine usage, the sending of the Son is
linked to where he comes from. For instance:

3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended
from heaven, the Son of Man.

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the
earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from
heaven is above all.

6: 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven
and gives life to the world.

7: 33 Jesus then said, “I will be with you a little longer,
and then I am going to him who sent me.”

10: 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and
sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of
God’?

13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things
into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God.

The point is to accentuate the fact that the Son is not from
this world. The Son is not a creature.

This is reinforced by a further fact. The passages I quoted
are book-ended by these statements:

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.

17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the
glory that I had with you before the world existed.

The Son doesn’t come from heaven the way an angel comes from
heaven. He isn’t sent in that sense. Rather, he is from heaven in the same
sense that the Father is from heaven, as well as the Spirit (e.g. Jn 1:32-33).
I don’t mean the Father comes from heaven. Rather, the Father is from heaven.

We need to distinguish two differences senses of heavenly
language:

i) Oftentimes in Scripture, heaven is a part of the created
order. A place where exalted creatures (saints, angels) dwell with God.

ii) However, the Fourth Gospel also uses heavenly language,
not to describe a created place, but to distinguish God’s exclusive domain from
the world. In this sense, heaven is not a part of the world. It doesn’t belong
to the created order. Rather, it’s a spatial metaphor for God’s unique mode of
subsistence. That which is only God, in distinction to that which is not God
(i.e. the world). The Son is a heavenly being, just like the Father (and the
Spirit).

Now let’s examine the second claim. Is it true that the
Father always tells the Son what to do, while the Son never tells the Father
what to do? In Jn 17, isn’t the Son telling the Father what to do?

17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his
eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the
Son may glorify you.”

5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the
glory that I had with you before the world existed.

11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the
world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you
have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

I think Christian readers miss that accent because we tend
to unconsciously turn the imperatives into petitions, as if Jesus is merely
asking the Father to do these things. And that’s because, when Christians pray
to God, we are making requests. We are supplicants. Sinners. Creatures. We
adopt a submissive posture in prayer.

But it’s a mistake to reinterpret the imperatives in Jn 17,
as if the Son speaks to the Father in the same way a Christian speaks to the
Father.

One might object that Jesus isn’t barking orders at the
Father. Agreed. But by the same token, the Father isn’t barking orders at
Jesus.

Finally, it’s striking to compare these two passages:

3:31 He who comes from above is above all.

10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than
all.

If we take 10:29 to mean the Father is superior to the Son,
then, by parity of argument, we should take 3:31 to mean the Son is superior to
the Father. If the Father being greater than all includes the Father being
greater than the Son, then the Son being over all includes the Son being over the
Father.

Clearly this should caution us against absolutizing
comparative statements about the Father in relation to the Son, for the logic
is reversible.

Indeed, we also have a specific assertion of the Son’s
equality with the Father:

5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God
his own Father, making himself equal with God.

24 comments:

Steve: “in Johannine usage, the sending of the Son is linked to where he comes from.”

Absolutely! Amen!

Steve: “I think Christian readers miss that accent because we tend to unconsciously turn the imperatives into petitions, as if Jesus is merely asking the Father to do these things”

I actually partly agree with you. This is a bold petition. Yes, it is even an imperative, but it is also a petition, nonetheless (he says so in v9); but it is as Son. We could never petition the Father this way as we are and say “Father, I did EVERYTHING you told me to…I’m perfect…now do this.” We can petition Him boldly, but through the Son in the power of the Spirit of adoption. So this is even a prayer we can pray...the symmetry of Father and Son has an additional correspondence to our adoption as sons.

It's worthwhile to note that Jesus is asking for *additional* glory in John 17. He says "glorify Me *with* the glory I had with You". He’s not saying “give it back to me”, as if He ceased being God. Since Jesus has eternal glory as God the Son why would ask for what He already had? It doesn’t make sense and wouldn’t be a bold petition let alone a bold imperative given He receives nothing new as it pertains to His divinity. He's asking for the glorification of His human nature through resurrection and being positionally exalted in coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Unless you believe in kenosis (and are a heretic), this is a terrible proof-text for you to trot out as if it affirms the new-fangled notion of “autotheos”. If the Person of the Son is not functionally subordinate to the Father, why would He petition the Father for this? He already had glory, correct? Why not glorify Himself, or say “Father, since I accomplished everything, and have divine glory of Myself….I’m going to go ahead and prep my own coronation”? You're turning the petition on its head.

The petition gloriously demonstrates the symmetry of the Father and Son relationship. The Father did send the Son…the same Father Who sent must now raise the God-Man up. He's petitioning based on His obedience (v6-8). If He’s petitioning based on His obedience on earth on the basis of the eternal glory He’s always had with the Father, this is a proof-text for His functional subordination to the Father as eternal Son and incarnate Son. You have to wonder…on your terms, why does He even ask? This is a problem text for those denying the eternal generation of the Son.

The relationship of Father and Son shows symmetry since these correspond. So I think you’re confused about what you mean by “asymmetry”.

In a way, “asymmetry” makes sense with regard to Unitarians (of the Arian variety) since they deny the Son has the same divine nature; but not that’s not the Nicene position. Since you don’t define what this means with respect to those affirming Nicea, I’ll just assume your “asserting the fundamental symmetry” means you eliminate distinction between Father and Son and are actually confessing yourself to be a Unitarian, just not of the Arian variety.

“So this is even a prayer we can pray...the symmetry of Father and Son has an additional correspondence to our adoption as sons.”

Adoption is more of a Pauline category than a Johannine category.

“It's worthwhile to note that Jesus is asking for *additional* glory in John 17. He says ‘glorify Me *with* the glory I had with You.’”

It’s unclear how you infer that from the preposition. How does the preposition imply that he’s asking for additional glory, rather than restoration of the status quo ante?

“He’s not saying ‘give it back to me’, as if He ceased being God. Since Jesus has eternal glory as God the Son why would ask for what He already had? It doesn’t make sense and wouldn’t be a bold petition let alone a bold imperative given He receives nothing new as it pertains to His divinity.”

You’re failing to distinguish between nature and prerogative. The eternally, intrinsically glorious Son assumes an extrinsically inglorious role (by dying for our sins), just as a king can play the role of a servant–even though he’s still the king.

“He's asking for the glorification of His human nature through resurrection and being positionally exalted in coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords.”

A passage like Phil 2:6-11 would be a better prooftext for that particular claim.

“Unless you believe in kenosis (and are a heretic), this is a terrible proof-text for you to trot out as if it affirms the new-fangled notion of ‘autotheos.’”

i) Since I didn’t cite this as a prooftext for the autotheos of the Son, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

ii) To attack it because it’s “a new-fangled notion” is counterproductive. After all, the Nicene creed was new-fangled at the time that was first promulgated. So was the Chalcedonian creed. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot unless you’re wearing steel boots.

“If the Person of the Son is not functionally subordinate to the Father, why would He petition the Father for this? He already had glory, correct? Why not glorify Himself,”

That argument backfires. If the fact that the Father glorifies the Son implies the functional subordination of the Son, then the fact that the Son glorifies the Father implies the functional subordination of the Father.

“The Father did send the Son…”

Which is not in dispute.

“…this is a proof-text for His functional subordination to the Father as eternal Son and incarnate Son. You have to wonder…on your terms, why does He even ask? This is a problem text for those denying the eternal generation of the Son.”

ii) Your argument proves too much. Why does the Father even ask (or tell) the Son to do anything? Why doesn’t the Father just do it all himself, glorify himself, &c.?

iii) Moreover, you yourself said this has reference to “the glorification of His human nature.” If that’s the case, then it’s not referring to the status of the Son qua Son, but the Son qua Incarnate. In which event you can’t appropriate it as a prooftext for immanent intratrinitarian subordination.

“So I think you’re confused about what you mean by ‘asymmetry’.”

I stated exactly what I meant at the outset.

“Since you don’t define what this means with respect to those affirming Nicea…”

I’ve given my interpretation of Nicene subordination on other occasions.

“I’ll just assume your ‘asserting the fundamental symmetry’ means you eliminate distinction between Father and Son and are actually confessing yourself to be a Unitarian, just not of the Arian variety.”

You can just assume that if you prefer to be a mendacious little demagogue.

Steve: "It’s unclear how you infer that from the preposition. How does the preposition imply that he’s asking for additional glory, rather than restoration of the status quo ante?"

Because it would mean He ceased being God, divesting Himself rather than humbling Himself. We know that isn't true because He claimed to be equal to the Father, that's why the Pharisees took up stones. Further, John states at the beginning of his gospel that Christ "tabernacled" (John 1:14). A veiled glory, not a divested glory to be restored.

Later on in John 17, Jesus promises to share this glory with His us (v22)...and we know reserves the glory of His deity for Himself, the Logos, and the Spirit (Isaiah 42:8).

Lastly, it is the simplest reading of the sentence: Glorify Me with the glory I had before. It's easy to read it to mean "restore", but that's not what it says...and if it did, that would be kenosis and introduce a conflation between deity and humanity if Jesus is sharing the eternal glory He's always had. So the reading is simpler and is in harmony with the Scriptures. Why should we read it to mean otherwise?

Steve: "You’re failing to distinguish between nature and prerogative. The eternally, intrinsically glorious Son assumes an extrinsically inglorious role (by dying for our sins), just as a king can play the role of a servant–even though he’s still the king."

Jesus prerogative was to reveal the Father. A king playing a role is wearing a disguise; the Incarnate Word reveals the Father.

Steve: "A passage like Phil 2:6-11 would be a better prooftext for that particular claim."

Steve: "i) Since I didn’t cite this as a prooftext for the autotheos of the Son, you’re barking up the wrong tree."

Perhaps I didn't understand you. When you say "Nicene Subordinationists", do you mean those who believe Jesus is God of very God but subordinate to His Father, or do you mean something else? If you meant something else (like an Arian...which is also unitarian), then my apologies. If not, then autotheos must be the backdrop of your post, otherwise what relevance is there to include non-unitarians on the receiving end of your arguments?

Steve: "iii) Moreover, you yourself said this has reference to “the glorification of His human nature.” If that’s the case, then it’s not referring to the status of the Son qua Son, but the Son qua Incarnate. In which event you can’t appropriate it as a prooftext for immanent intratrinitarian subordination."

Jesus, as Son, assumes a human nature as the Incarnate Son. The correspondence is called "hypostatic union". Jesus really reveals His relationship with the Father in the economy of our salvation.

Steve: "You can just assume that if you prefer to be a mendacious little demagogue."

Explain how your "symmetry" isn't really "asymmetry". That's my point. This is why I believe autotheos is the backdrop of the entire post. Everything about my position is symmetrical. Father, Son. Son reveals the Father in His Incarnate flesh. He doesn't merely take on a role that diverts our understanding from the Father, rather, His assumed humanity accommodates us and is revelatory.

I can't say I appreciate your candor in stating your belief in my duplicity, but thanks for your response to my other comments.

“Because it would mean He ceased being God, divesting Himself rather than humbling Himself.”

Which fails to explain how you derive that conclusion from a prepositional phrase. You quoted Jesus saying:

"Glorify Me *with* the glory I had with You".

You emphasized “with,” as if that preposition (which is just an English helping word for the Greek case) disproves the restoration interpretation. How are you getting all that out of a preposition?

“A veiled glory, not a divested glory to be restored.”

In the Fourth Gospel, “glory” is dynamic rather than static. It can be a process rather than, or additional to, a state. So, for instance, you not only have the glorification of the Son, but the glorification of the Father. There are differing degrees of glory.

To temporarily forfeit his glory or abdicate the throne denotes the assumption of a lower status or inferior role, not the loss of essential divine attributes.

“Lastly, it is the simplest reading of the sentence…”

I don’t see how the simplest reading favors Jesus acquiring something he didn’t have before. To the contrary, the simplest reading favors a resumption of his prior status. In returning to the Father, he resumes his full prerogatives.

“It's easy to read it to mean 'restore', but that's not what it says.”

Why is that not what it says?

“And if it did, that would be kenosis”

You keep asserting that non sequitur.

“...introduce a conflation between deity and humanity if Jesus is sharing the eternal glory He's always had.”

If the incarnation can preserve that distinction, so can the Ascension.

“Why should we read it to mean otherwise?”

Because it follows the V-shaped narrative. The Son comes down from heaven. Takes on a human nature, which is below his divine nature. And in that capacity, redeems us. That’s a self-demotion.

Steve: I don’t see how the simplest reading favors Jesus acquiring something he didn’t have before. To the contrary, the simplest reading favors a resumption of his prior status. In returning to the Father, he resumes his full prerogatives.

You need to pick a position and stick with it. You began by talking about glory being a “dynamic” thing (which I agree with)…now you resort to a static reading. Static in that the glorifying of the Son ceased for a time...doesn't get much more static than that. If Christ is “resuming his status” and He is asking to be glorified…then on this reading, the glorifying of the divine Son ceased for a time. This is why I keep saying your reading necessarily introduces kenosis.

Obviously Christ is asking to be glorified because of His work on earth. He bases it on having done everything He was supposed to (John 17:4). He’s not being rewarded with His prior status based on His obedience as a man. He’s requesting that his humanity be glorified because of His obedience in accordance with the glory He’s always had. Again, this is the simplest reading.

He did assume a task beneath Him. Agreed. But it is also revelatory. I know we agree on this, it’s obvious…but I think you’re missing the obvious correlation between the revelation of the union of the Word with flesh relating as Son to Father (the Son is one Person, after all).

Steve: You’re equivocating. Everything that’s true of the Son qua Son doesn’t carry over to the Son qua Incarnate, or vice versa.

Did I say that everything that’s true of the Son qua Son carries over to the Son qua Incarnate? No, I didn’t. I said His Incarnation is revelatory of that relationship. I did not say it is identical. It does not have to be identical to be revelatory.

Steve: If you accept Nicene subordinationism, then you view the intratrinitarian relations hierarchically rather than symmetrically.

It’s not an either/or, Steve. Hierarchy within the Trinity is symmetrical. While marriage is not a type of the Trinity, we do see that the hierarchical order presents a symmetrical relationship. It’s written in our biology. In case it isn’t clear yet, I’m arguing your denial of that hierarchy within the Trinity introduces asymmetry.

Steve: A red herring.

You need to argue this. You seem to think the Incarnation is a disruption of the Son as Son rather than Sonship mediated through the flesh. You keep asserting my view is not symmetrical. Because the obedience of the Son in the flesh doesn’t reveal the relation of the Son to His Father on your view, the Son relates to the Father as God and Man in non-anologically symmetrical ways. This disjoints the symmetry of the hypostatic union such that you’re borderline Nestorian.

“You need to pick a position and stick with it. You began by talking about glory being a ‘dynamic’ thing (which I agree with)…now you resort to a static reading. Static in that the glorifying of the Son ceased for a time...doesn't get much more static than that.”

Don’t be disingenuous. Even if my position amounted to Jesus having glory, then ceasing to have it, then having it back, that would hardly be static. Static would mean retaining the same state or status throughout. So even on your simplistic characterization of my position, that position would still be dynamic. It would involve different phases or stages of glory or nonglory. Try to be honest.

“If Christ is “resuming his status” and He is asking to be glorified…then on this reading, the glorifying of the divine Son ceased for a time. This is why I keep saying your reading necessarily introduces kenosis.”

You’re not paying attention to what I actually said. You’re so stuck on your own wooden paradigm that you keep mapping that onto my statements, as the antithesis of your position. You need to acquire a modicum of critical detachment.

i) To begin with, I’ve distinguished nature and prerogative or nature and status all along. So I haven’t changed my position.

a) If we define glory as a divine attribute (i.e. nature), then the Son’s glory is unceasing and undiminished.

b) If, however, we define glory as a status or prerogative, then that can be suspended or diminished.

c) Moreover, the two different senses of glory are interrelated. Some attributes can be fully possessed without being fully manifested or exercised. Omnipotence is a case in point. Omnipotence has both a qualitative and quantitative aspect. Qualitatively speaking, considered as an attribute, God’s possession of omnipotence is absolute and total. But quantitatively speaking, the expression of God’s omnipotence is subject to degrees.

Same thing with the glory dialectic. On the one hand you have the resumptive motif in 17:5, which implies a change from the Son’s previous status on earth. That’s also reinforced by the downward motif.

On the other hand, you have flashes of the Son’s glory on earth. Situations where his glory is manifested.

So it’s a difference of degree. The Ascension restores his status. He reclaims his preincarnate status. It restores him to full glory.

That doesn’t mean his glory was totally absent or in abeyance on earth. Considered as an attribute, it was always in reserve, which is why he could tap it on certain occasions. But for the most part, the Incarnate Son accepted a temporary demotion as part of his redemptive role.

“He’s requesting that his humanity be glorified because of His obedience in accordance with the glory He’s always had. Again, this is the simplest reading.”

Since the text doesn’t say it’s his humanity that’s to be glorified, that’s not the simplest reading. Indeed, that’s not reading the text at all.

“Did I say that everything that’s true of the Son qua Son carries over to the Son qua Incarnate? No, I didn’t. I said His Incarnation is revelatory of that relationship. I did not say it is identical. It does not have to be identical to be revelatory.”

Now you’re being intransigent. Since even by your own reckoning, there’s a difference between the Son qua Son and the Son qua Incarnate, you can’t attack my critique of Nicene subordinationism on the grounds that it distinguishes between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity–for you yourself admit that the economic Trinity doesn’t reveal the immanent Trinity without further qualification.

Cont. “It’s not an either/or, Steve. Hierarchy within the Trinity is symmetrical. While marriage is not a type of the Trinity, we do see that the hierarchical order presents a symmetrical relationship.”

Actually, I don’t. You asserted that “He doesn't merely take on a role that diverts our understanding from the Father”–in alleged contrast to my own position. Since I deny that my position diverts our attention from the Father, I don’t need to argue against your assertion. Rather, you need to argue for your assertion.

BTW, in response to Dale Tuggy, I’m the one who repeatedly pointed out that the Son reveals the Father.

“You seem to think the Incarnation is a disruption of the Son as Son…”

That’s something you made up whole cloth.

“Because the obedience of the Son in the flesh doesn’t reveal the relation of the Son to His Father on your view.”

Once again, that’s something you made up whole cloth, because you’re superimposing your framework onto mine.

“This disjoints the symmetry of the hypostatic union such that you’re borderline Nestorian.”

Opponents always play the “Nestorian” card when they lose the exegetical argument.

Far from being the simplest way to construe Jn 17:5, Craig's gloss makes it say the polar opposite of what it actually teaches. Instead of Father glorifying the Son with the glory the Son had before the Incarnation, Craig French, by reassigning the glorification to Christ's human nature, makes the passage deny Christ's preincarnate glory with the Father. On his reading, the Father is glorying the Son with a glory he did *not* have prior to the Incarnation, rather than a glory which he *did* have prior to the Incarnation, contrary to the explicit teaching of the text.

Steve: Don’t be disingenuous. Even if my position amounted to Jesus having glory, then ceasing to have it, then having it back, that would hardly be static. Static would mean retaining the same state or status throughout. So even on your simplistic characterization of my position, that position would still be dynamic. It would involve different phases or stages of glory or nonglory. Try to be honest.

Try to follow a line of argument without resorting to telling me I’m duplicitous, disingenuous, and dishonest. The Father ceasing to glorify the Son for a time would be static. Synonym: stasis.

Steve: You’re not paying attention to what I actually said. You’re so stuck on your own wooden paradigm that you keep mapping that onto my statements, as the antithesis of your position. You need to acquire a modicum of critical detachment.

I follow what you’re saying. Your interpretation of the passage is wrong. All you’ve done is introduce a foreign concept to the text. I agree that in the sense of prerogative, Christ did “set aside” glory. That’s irrelevant with regard to the passage and is something you’ve introduced to it.

Steve: Since the text doesn’t say it’s his humanity that’s to be glorified, that’s not the simplest reading. Indeed, that’s not reading the text at all.

Stop being selectively wooden and anachronistic. Christ doesn’t have to say it was His humanity. He wasn’t praying to the Father before men who were familiar with categories established later on. Christ bases His glorification on His obedience on earth…and later in the chapter says He will share this glory with His disciples (and us as well). He’s speaking of glorifying His human nature.

Steve: …you can’t attack my critique of Nicene subordinationism on the grounds that it distinguishes between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity–for you yourself admit that the economic Trinity doesn’t reveal the immanent Trinity without further qualification.

I never attacked you on the grounds that you distinguish between the immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity.

I think Thomas Keningley’s comment on your Immanent Trinity post provides an example of someone else who may find your analogy/disanalogy to be more disanalogy than analogy. You may not agree with me, but I think it’s obvious. Not sure how to make it more obvious other than to scream, but all caps rarely brings the point home.

Perhaps you could take a moment and describe, in a way consistent with what you’ve been writing the last few days, how the Son’s acts of obedience reveal the Father.

Steve: Opponents always play the “Nestorian” card when they lose the exegetical argument.

You haven’t exegeted, Steve. You introduced a foreign concept to the text while ignoring the context. I don’t throw the Nestorian card around loosely. I don’t think you are Nestorian, but if you really are committed to what you’ve written (and I have my doubts that you are), then you would be.

Steve: Far from being the simplest way to construe Jn 17:5, Craig's gloss makes it say the polar opposite of what it actually teaches. Instead of Father glorifying the Son with the glory the Son had before the Incarnation, Craig French, by reassigning the glorification to Christ's human nature, makes the passage deny Christ's preincarnate glory with the Father. On his reading, the Father is glorying the Son with a glory he did *not* have prior to the Incarnation, rather than a glory which he *did* have prior to the Incarnation, contrary to the explicit teaching of the text.

Not sure if you’re trying to be ridiculous or if you’re serious. I’ll assume serious just in case someone else happens to think you’re on to something. You criticized me for basically hanging my hat on the preposition “with”. I take the passage to mean Christ’s humanity is glorified in accordance with the glory He has always had, always received, and continues to receive eternally because He’s always been the eternal Son of God. It’s called the hypostatic union. Remember, you’re the one who says Jesus set aside His glory and gets it back for temporal obedience. Tongue slightly implanted in cheek.

“Try to follow a line of argument without resorting to telling me I’m duplicitous, disingenuous, and dishonest.”

When you resort to dishonest arguments, I’ll call you out.

“The Father ceasing to glorify the Son for a time would be static. Synonym: stasis.”

i) To the contrary, that would involve a change. Change isn’t static. Change is dynamic.

ii) BTW, the resumptive interpretation doesn’t mean the Father ceased to glorify the Son. That assumes the Father glorified the Son prior to the creation or incarnation. But Jn 17:5 doesn’t say the Father originally glorified the Son. Rather, it refers to the original glory which the Son had with the Father. It doesn’t make the Son the recipient of glory in his preincarnate state. Rather, that’s something he possessed with the Father before the world was made. He is only the recipient of glory after he returns to heaven, not before he left heaven.

“All you’ve done is introduce a foreign concept to the text.”

So you assert. That’s not an argument for your contention.

“Christ doesn’t have to say it was His humanity.”

If you claim that your interpretation is the simplest reading of the text, then your text ought to say that.

“And later in the chapter says He will share this glory with His disciples (and us as well). He’s speaking of glorifying His human nature.”

Does he share his human nature with us?

“You may not agree with me, but I think it’s obvious. Not sure how to make it more obvious other than to scream, but all caps rarely brings the point home.”

Which means you can’t give a reason for your position.

“Perhaps you could take a moment and describe, in a way consistent with what you’ve been writing the last few days, how the Son’s acts of obedience reveal the Father.”

That’s a skewed question since that’s not the only way in which the Incarnation reveals the Father. For instance, the Incarnation reveals the Father through the Son because they are two of a kind (e.g. Jn 1:18). God reveals God.

“You haven’t exegeted, Steve. You introduced a foreign concept to the text while ignoring the context.”

That doesn’t make it ipso facto correct, but it’s absurd for you to act as though your peculiar gloss represents the default interpretation. You’re the one who’s pushing a highly idiosyncratic interpretation.

“I take the passage to mean Christ’s humanity is glorified in accordance with the glory He has always had, always received, and continues to receive eternally because He’s always been the eternal Son of God.”

Which you can’t get from the actual wording of Jn 17:5. Indeed, that’s something you’re construing in spite of how the text is stated.

“It’s called the hypostatic union.”

The hypostatic union doesn’t imply a glorification of Christ’s human nature. That’s the Greek Orthodox category of theosis. By contrast, Reformed Christology refers the communication of attributes to the person of Christ, rather than a communication of divine attributes to the human nature, or vice versa.

“Remember, you’re the one who says Jesus set aside His glory and gets it back for temporal obedience.”

That misrepresents what I said. I distinguished between glory as nature and glory as status. I also distinguish degrees of glory in the manifestation of glory.

“Perhaps you could take a moment and describe, in a way consistent with what you’ve been writing the last few days, how the Son’s acts of obedience reveal the Father.”

Making allowance for the slanted character of the question, as if the Father is only revealed in the “Son’s acts of obedience,” the work of Christ reveals the Father’s role in the plan of salvation. The Son comes as the Father’s commissioned agent.

There’s no such thing as a dishonest argument, only a dishonest person making an argument. If you think I’m a liar, be a man and call me a liar.

Steve: “So you assert. That’s not an argument for your contention.”

The assertion was built upon prior references I made throughout the chapter. If you suffer from selective amnesia, it would be a waste of my time rehashing these things.

Steve: “If you claim that your interpretation is the simplest reading of the text, then your text ought to say that.”

Again, selectively wooden and anachronistic. I think you’ll see below that your reading introduces far more complexity requiring a lot of qualification…and if no qualification, then it implies a heretical notion.

Steve: “Does he share his human nature with us?”

He took on our human nature and we will be made like Him…not mini gods…we will be glorified as His human nature is glorified.

Steve: “That doesn’t make it ipso facto correct, but it’s absurd for you to act as though your peculiar gloss represents the default interpretation. You’re the one who’s pushing a highly idiosyncratic interpretation.”

I never implied my interpretation is the default. I said it’s the simplest reading.

Steve: “Which you can’t get from the actual wording of Jn 17:5. Indeed, that’s something you’re construing in spite of how the text is stated.”

If Jesus was simply resuming His glory in position, or status, I’m not sure how you can avoid the monophysite heresy. Yes, I know you’re arguing based on “position” or “status”, and not “nature”. The problem (for you) is that the Son is united to a human nature forever. That nature is always beneath his deity because it is created…unless it’s absorbed into deity, which I know you don’t believe. That’s where your “simpler reading” will have to a lot of qualifying. Can Christ ever "resume" His pre-incarnate glory given He is now forever incarnate?

My stance is that the text says something so very simple…that He is glorified *with* the glory He’s always had. That preposition is inspired, btw.

Steve: “The hypostatic union doesn’t imply a glorification of Christ’s human nature. That’s the Greek Orthodox category of theosis. By contrast, Reformed Christology refers the communication of attributes to the person of Christ, rather than a communication of divine attributes to the human nature, or vice versa.”

No, it doesn’t imply a glorification of Christ’s human nature by itself…but Christ’s nature was glorified, the chapter being discussed involves Jesus the God-Man requesting glory, so I figure the hypostatic union must be relevant. Crazy…I know.

Steve: “No, that’s not the simplest reading, for Jn 17:5 implies a contrast between his earthly status, his preincarnate status, and his post-Ascension status.”

There’s still the simple fact that Christ is still incarnate…see monophysite comment above.

It reads the statement as the statement is worded. That’s simple, not complex.

If there’s complexity, that’s not in how to read the statement, but integrating the statement into a systematic theology of John. That’s a different issue. And complexity is unavoidable at that higher level.

“He took on our human nature and we will be made like Him…not mini gods…we will be glorified as His human nature is glorified.”

But we won’t be glorified *in* his human nature. Therefore, the way you tried to connect his humanity with glorifying Christians is logically disconnected. You have a problem keeping track of your own argument.

“If Jesus was simply resuming His glory in position, or status, I’m not sure how you can avoid the monophysite heresy.”

For starters, you can’t begin with an ecclesiastically defined heresy, then use that to interpret Jn 17:5. The standard of orthodoxy must derive from Scripture.

“Yes, I know you’re arguing based on ‘position’ or ‘status’, and not ‘nature’. The problem (for you) is that the Son is united to a human nature forever. That nature is always beneath his deity because it is created…unless it’s absorbed into deity, which I know you don’t believe. That’s where your ‘simpler reading’ will have to a lot of qualifying. Can Christ ever ‘resume’ His pre-incarnate glory given He is now forever incarnate?”

Your objection commits a level-confusion. We’re not opposing his human nature to his divine nature, or vice versa, by contrasting his preincarnate status with his post-Ascension status. So, no, that doesn’t require a lot of qualifying.

Cont. “My stance is that the text says something so very simple…that He is glorified *with* the glory He’s always had. That preposition is inspired, btw.”

i) The Greek construction of 17:5 doesn’t even use a preposition with glory. Didn’t you ever bother to read it in the original? A proposition is used with the Father, not glory.

The preposition is an English helping word to translate the case. The English helping word is not inspired.

ii) Even if it did use “with” in conjunction with “glory,” you have yet to explain how the preposition “with” entails continuous possession of glory by the Son. “With” is not a verb, much less a linear present tense verb.

iii) V5 isn’t asserting continuous glorification. To the contrary, v5 contrasts the present status of the Son with his past status (i.e. preincarnate status in glory), as well as his future status, when he is reunited with the Father in glory.

iv) In addition, v5 stands in contrast to v4. Up until now, the Son has been glorifying the Father. Now it’s time for the Father to return the favor. According to the relationship between v4 and v5, the Father has not been glorifying the Son all along. Rather, up until now, the Son has been glorifying the Father instead of the Father glorifying the Son.

“No, it doesn’t imply a glorification of Christ’s human nature by itself…but Christ’s nature was glorified, the chapter being discussed involves Jesus the God-Man requesting glory, so I figure the hypostatic union must be relevant. Crazy…I know.”

You yourself are differentiating the two natures in order to assign new glorification to his humanity.

“There’s still the simple fact that Christ is still incarnate…see monophysite comment above.”

Once again, you need to pay attention. I didn’t contrast preincarnate status with a post-incarnate status, but with a post-Ascension status.

“One might object that Jesus isn’t barking orders at the Father. Agreed. But by the same token, the Father isn’t barking orders at Jesus.”

>>>That is precisely the opposite of what this passage says:

John 8:28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that *******I do nothing on my own authority**********, but speak just as the Father taught me. ESV

Authority pertains to person not nature.

“5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”

>>>As you probably know but don’t care, much like Gerety, my Nicene Monarchist camp has never, ever, ever, stated that the nature of the Son is unequal with the nature of the Father. I have always affirmed a strict homoousios when speaking of the natures in each person. The issue is, there is more to persons than nature. There is also hypostasis and that is the level I have placed the subordination. You can dismiss it all you like, upon pain of the 9th commandment.

You think the Father is “barking orders” at the Son, like a drill sergeant?

“Authority pertains to person not nature.”

Where does Jn 8:28 draw that distinction?

“As you probably know but don’t care, much like Gerety, my Nicene Monarchist camp has never, ever, ever, stated that the nature of the Son is unequal with the nature of the Father. I have always affirmed a strict homoousios when speaking of the natures in each person. The issue is, there is more to persons than nature. There is also hypostasis and that is the level I have placed the subordination.”

If Steve wants to use mathematical definitions (note: not definition, singular), he'll need to do a better job. Geometrically-speaking, the analogy reduces God to oneness. If it's like a man having a left ear and a right ear, those are composite parts that make up a whole....again, this reduces God to oneness absolutely. Cut off an ear, the man's still a man.

I think Steve probably means the Son and Father are symmetrical in that they are completely God with different roles that correspond. The Son "reflects" the Father back (this in itself points to source, so the Son is receiving the "image" to reflect back). For some reason, he doesn't think hierarchy of position (not ontology) actually ensures symmetry...or "unity" and "diversity". I also know he holds to a biblical view of marriage, so if hierarchy of position in God makes the Son a lesser being, he's going to have trouble preserving the biblical view of marriage he holds to.

“If Steve wants to use mathematical definitions (note: not definition, singular), he'll need to do a better job. Geometrically-speaking, the analogy reduces God to oneness. If it's like a man having a left ear and a right ear, those are composite parts that make up a whole....again, this reduces God to oneness absolutely. Cut off an ear, the man's still a man.”

i) That’s extremely confused. “Left” and “right” are examples of chirality. Chirality is irreducible. Left-handedness is not interchangeable with right-handedness.

ii) Moreover, Craig is using an example drawn from a composite organism with physical parts. That’s hardly analogous to the Trinity.

“I think Steve probably means the Son and Father are symmetrical in that they are completely God with different roles that correspond.”

Steve means there’s no subordination in the immanent Trinity.

“The Son ‘reflects’ the Father back (this in itself points to source, so the Son is receiving the ‘image’ to reflect back).”

That’s another example of Craig’s confusion. If you place two mirrors face to face, they reflect each other. There’s no linear source. If (a la Craig) you wish to use receptive terminology, then they are mutually receptive.

Nicene subordinationism isn’t merely a functional, but ontological, for the Father is the total source of the Son’s essence and existence. Everything the Son (and Spirit) have and are is derivative. As Aquinas put it:

“The whole reality of the Father is to…give all that he has, namely, his whole divine nature, to the Son. And the whole reality of the Son is to…receive all that he has, namely, his whole nature, from the Father. The life of the Father is an eternal giving of himself whole and entire to the Son. The life of the Son is an eternal receiving of the Father whole and entire” 474. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Part I (Magi Books 1980).

That’s ontological. And the disparity couldn’t be more drastic or radical.

“I also know he holds to a biblical view of marriage, so if hierarchy of position in God makes the Son a lesser being, he's going to have trouble preserving the biblical view of marriage he holds to.”

i) A wife doesn’t receive her nature and being whole and entire from her husband. Indeed, she doesn’t receive any of her nature or being from her husband. So Craig’s comparison is fundamentally disanalogous.

ii) However, he is tipping his hand. His commitment to Nicene subordination is driven by his commitment to male headship. Here’s the stepwise argument:

Start with 1 Cor 11:3. Interpret “the head of a wife is her husband” in complementarian terms. So far so good.

Then interpret “and the head of Christ is God” in Nicene subordinationist terms. Then use Nicene subordinationism to reinforce complementarianism. This is where it goes off the rails.

That, in turn, commits you in advance to systematically interpret all NT Christological statements in terms of Nicene subordinationism.

But if a complementarian makes the Nicene move in 1 Cor 11:3 to bolster male headship, then he must interpret every NT Christological statement consistent with Nicene subordinationism, regardless of what those statements actually mean. At that point the caboose of uxorial submission is pulling the locomotive of the immanent Trinity.

1. Keep in mind my comment was in response to your reply to Steve. In his comment Steve described symmetry in terms of reversibility. You responded that Steve's idea of symmetry differed from your own. Your reply indicated Steve didn't mean reversibility but identity. You said: "I mean 'proportional', or correspondence. You actually mean identical." But the fact that you would mistake what Steve said to think reversibility really means identity potentially indicates a deficient understanding of symmetry on your part.

For starters, to say symmetry is identity is at best incomplete. Take a square on a 2D plane. There are four ways to rotate a square such that it remains symmetrical. We can't rotate the square, say, 45 degrees because then the square would be more like a diamond. But we can rotate it at a right angle i.e. by 90 degrees. Or we can rotate it by 180 degrees. Or by 270 degrees. Or not rotate it at all i.e. by 0 degrees. This latter is the identity operation in rotational symmetry.

But rotational symmetries differ from other symmetries like reflective symmetries. There are four reflections of a square to retain symmetry. We could reflect a square along its vertical axis, along its horizontal axis, or along either of its diagonal axes.

We could include other sorts of symmetry like translations wherein we slide a square horizontally or vertically the same distance as its length. Or symmetries in 3D space.

Or if we consider physical space, at least in the context of Euclidean space rather than non-Euclidean curved space-time, space appears boundless and uniform. Every which way we look it's all the same. Nothing changes as far as the eye can see. As such, whatever we do to physical space, whether we rotate it by whatever degree, reflect it along any mirror axis we wish, translate it by light-years, and so forth, it still remains symmetrical. Nevertheless is one portion of physical space identical to another?

And to say symmetry is proportionality (let alone correspondence) is at best vague. What do you mean by proportionality (e.g. ratios)? Proportionality can be a feature of symmetry, but how is it a defining feature? Rocks weighing 50kg are proportional in weight to balls weighing 50kg, but rocks and balls are hardly symmetrical. Not to mention proportionality can be considered directly or inversely.

Anyway, I responded by saying you should check out a mathematical resource like the PCM. I said this in large part because such terms and language have a significant basis in mathematics.

2. After all, where do you propose to begin looking for such a definition? Perhaps a dictionary like the OED? If so, I would think it reasonable to suppose the OED (among other things) consulted the work of historical and modern persons who coined or made significant contributions to a particular definition of a word or concept, who illustrated the word or concept in their writings, looking at the contexts in which they did so, and so forth. In our case I think it's reasonable to suppose the OED considered the work of mathematicians in helping to determine a definition for symmetry, especially given mathematicians played key historical roles in the development of the definition of symmetry (e.g. Galois).

3. This isn't to say a mathematical definition of symmetry is the be-all and end-all. For instance there's of course an aesthetic quality to symmetry. But I don't see why a mathematical definition isn't at least an advantageous starting point when it comes to the concept of symmetry. If, for example, simplicity and clarity are more advantageous than complexity and obscurity when it comes to beginning to understand symmetry, then something like AB = BA or identity and reflection would seem to be a pretty simple and clear way to broach the topic.

At this point, I'm not talking about specific mathematical numbers or equations. For one thing, that might lose sight of the forest for the trees. Rather I'm talking about mathematical concepts or ideas, symbols, and analogies, including ones you raised. We can later delve into technicalities if need be.

4. An object isn't necessarily merely symmetrical or asymmetrical. A single object can have multiple symmetries.

5. Symmetry isn't just about forms, shapes, sizes, and the like (e.g. geometric shapes, snowflakes, icosahedronal viruses, Nautilus shells). There is also symmetry elsewhere such as in function and motion (e.g. bipedal locomotion, bee dances).

6. It's possible to get carried away with symmetry. Such as with string theory (pdf).

7. Just as interesting as symmetry is how symmetry can be broken. There are fascinating patterns to explore. Patterns which could yield a treasure trove of insight including insight relevant to the topic at hand.

"If Steve wants to use mathematical definitions (note: not definition, singular), he'll need to do a better job."

Actually, I happen to think Steve has done a fine job with regard to mathematical definitions here (if that's how you want to evaluate him).

"Geometrically-speaking, the analogy reduces God to oneness."

1. I don't see how. Perhaps you could elaborate.

2. A mathematical perspective on symmetry isn't solely geometric, though obviously it can deal with geometric objects. In fact, an abstract algebraic concept known as group theory is central to understanding symmetry. Group theory makes sense of symmetry. Group theory allows us to generalize symmetry into logical operations. At the risk of overstatement, group theory is the language of symmetry. There's obviously much more to say, but that'd take me more time than I'd like to spend on this right now.

"If it's like a man having a left ear and a right ear, those are composite parts that make up a whole....again, this reduces God to oneness absolutely. Cut off an ear, the man's still a man."

1. Humans may appear to be left-right symmetrical, but this isn't actually the case. It's not as if the heart is perfectly central and bilateral. It's not as if there's a liver on both sides of the body.

2. As Steve already noted, not all symmetry is chiral. I'm not adding anything new here, but other examples include the standard amino acids we humans need to survive are left-handed isomers, whereas some amino acids in bacteria are right-handed.

Likewise Wolfgang Pauli once said, "I do not believe the Lord is a weak left-hander." Pauli was referring to an experiment to test a particular aspect of one of the four fundamental forces: the weak force. He expected the results of this particular experiment would produce symmetrical results. But it turned out Pauli was mistaken. The weak force, unlike the other three forces (i.e. the strong force, electromagnetism, and gravity), does indeed violate mirror symmetry in that it exhibits different behavior when considering left-handed vs right-handed problems.